Being Below Marriageable Age Would Not Deprive Live-In Couple From Fundamental Right To Protection: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that being below marriageable age would not deprive the live-in couple from fundamental right to protection, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Arun Monga said, "It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or a major. Mere fact that petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of their fundamental right, as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India."

These observation came in response to the protection plea filed by a live-in couple wherein the boy was although major but not of marriageable age.

The petitioners stated that they are purportedly in love with each other and they have been living together in relationship for past couple of days. It was further submitted that they have decided to get married when boy attained the marriageable age and approached their parents, but parents of the girl were against their marriage.

It was alleged that they were living under constant danger as they have every apprehension that their family members will catch them and carry out their threats and may go to the extent of even committing their murder. The petitioners are, therefore stated to be moving around without being able to find a safe place to live due to the absence of protection for their life and liberty.

Considering the petition, the Court opined, "I have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties."

Reference was also made to Seema Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and other (CRWP No. 4725 of 2021), in which the High Court said, "this Court in the past and also recently has allowed protection to those runaway couples, even though they were not married and were in a live- in relationship, and in cases where the marriage was invalid (as one of the parties though a major, was not of age as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act) and the children of live-in couples have been accorded adequate protection by the Parliament."

In the light of the above, the Court directed the SSP, Amritsar to verify the contents of the petition, particularly the threat perception of the petitioners, and thereafter, provide necessary protection qua their life and liberty, if deemed fit.

Appearance: Lakhwinder Singh Lakhanpal, Advocate, For the petitioners.

Dhruv Dayal, Additional A.G., Punjab.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 112

Title: X v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Click here to click/read the order.